Nikolaos Koutsouleris1, René S Kahn2, Adam M Chekroud3, Stefan Leucht4, Peter Falkai5, Thomas Wobrock6, Eske M Derks2, Wolfgang W Fleischhacker7, Alkomiet Hasan5. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Nikolaos.Koutsouleris@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technical University, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany. 6. Centre of Mental Health, County Hospitals Darmstadt-Dieburg, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 7. Department of Biological Psychiatry, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At present, no tools exist to estimate objectively the risk of poor treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis. Such tools could improve treatment by informing clinical decision-making before the commencement of treatment. We tested whether such a tool could be successfully built and validated using routinely available, patient-reportable information. METHODS: By applying machine learning to data from 334 patients in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number, ISRCTN68736636), we developed a tool to predict poor versus good treatment outcome (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] score ≥65 vs GAF <65, respectively) after 4 weeks and 52 weeks of treatment. To enable the unbiased estimation of the predictive system's generalisability to new patients, we used repeated nested cross-validation to prevent information leaking between patients used for training and validating the models. In pursuit of everyday clinical applicability, we retrained the 4-week outcome predictor with only the top ten predictors of the pooled prediction system and then tested this tool in 108 independent patients with 4-week outcome labels. Discontinuation and readmission to hospital events in patients with predicted poor versus good outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier log-rank analyses, whereas generalised linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the GAF-based predictions against several clinically meaningful outcome indicators, including treatment adherence, symptom remission, and quality of life. FINDINGS: The generalisability of our outcome predictions were estimated with cross-validation (test-fold balanced accuracy [BAC] of 75·0% for 4-week outcomes and 73·8% for and 52-week outcomes), and leave-site-out validation across 44 European sites (BAC of 72·1% for 4-week outcomes and 71·1% for 52-week outcomes). We identified a smaller group of ten predictors still providing a BAC of 71·7% in 108 patients never used for model discovery. Unemployment, poor education, functional deficits, and unmet psychosocial needs predicted both endpoints, whereas previous depressive episodes, male sex, and suicidality additionally predicted poor 1-year outcomes. 52-week predictions identified patients at risk for symptom persistence, non-adherence to treatment, readmission to hospital and poor quality of life. Specifically among these patients, amisulpride and olanzapine showed superior efficacy versus haloperidol, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that prognostic models operating on brief, patient-reportable pre-treatment data might provide useful insight into individualised outcome trajectories, optimising treatment selection, and targeted clinical trial designs. To embed these tools into real-world care, replication is needed in external first-episode samples with overlapping variables, which are not available in the field at present. FUNDING: The European Group for Research in Schizophrenia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: At present, no tools exist to estimate objectively the risk of poor treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis. Such tools could improve treatment by informing clinical decision-making before the commencement of treatment. We tested whether such a tool could be successfully built and validated using routinely available, patient-reportable information. METHODS: By applying machine learning to data from 334 patients in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number, ISRCTN68736636), we developed a tool to predict poor versus good treatment outcome (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] score ≥65 vs GAF <65, respectively) after 4 weeks and 52 weeks of treatment. To enable the unbiased estimation of the predictive system's generalisability to new patients, we used repeated nested cross-validation to prevent information leaking between patients used for training and validating the models. In pursuit of everyday clinical applicability, we retrained the 4-week outcome predictor with only the top ten predictors of the pooled prediction system and then tested this tool in 108 independent patients with 4-week outcome labels. Discontinuation and readmission to hospital events in patients with predicted poor versus good outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier log-rank analyses, whereas generalised linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the GAF-based predictions against several clinically meaningful outcome indicators, including treatment adherence, symptom remission, and quality of life. FINDINGS: The generalisability of our outcome predictions were estimated with cross-validation (test-fold balanced accuracy [BAC] of 75·0% for 4-week outcomes and 73·8% for and 52-week outcomes), and leave-site-out validation across 44 European sites (BAC of 72·1% for 4-week outcomes and 71·1% for 52-week outcomes). We identified a smaller group of ten predictors still providing a BAC of 71·7% in 108 patients never used for model discovery. Unemployment, poor education, functional deficits, and unmet psychosocial needs predicted both endpoints, whereas previous depressive episodes, male sex, and suicidality additionally predicted poor 1-year outcomes. 52-week predictions identified patients at risk for symptom persistence, non-adherence to treatment, readmission to hospital and poor quality of life. Specifically among these patients, amisulpride and olanzapine showed superior efficacy versus haloperidol, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that prognostic models operating on brief, patient-reportable pre-treatment data might provide useful insight into individualised outcome trajectories, optimising treatment selection, and targeted clinical trial designs. To embed these tools into real-world care, replication is needed in external first-episode samples with overlapping variables, which are not available in the field at present. FUNDING: The European Group for Research in Schizophrenia.
Authors: Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic; Stephan Ruhrmann; Marlene Rosen; Anne Ruef; Dominic B Dwyer; Marco Paolini; Katharine Chisholm; Joseph Kambeitz; Theresa Haidl; André Schmidt; John Gillam; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Peter Falkai; Maximilian Reiser; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Rachel Upthegrove; Jarmo Hietala; Raimo K R Salokangas; Christos Pantelis; Eva Meisenzahl; Stephen J Wood; Dirk Beque; Paolo Brambilla; Stefan Borgwardt Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: John H Krystal; John D Murray; Adam M Chekroud; Philip R Corlett; Genevieve Yang; Xiao-Jing Wang; Alan Anticevic Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Adam M Chekroud; David Foster; Amanda B Zheutlin; Danielle M Gerhard; Brita Roy; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Abhishek Chandra; Michelle Degli Esposti; Girish Subramanyan; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Martin Paulus; John H Krystal Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Jessica de Nijs; Thijs J Burger; Ronald J Janssen; Seyed Mostafa Kia; Daniël P J van Opstal; Mariken B de Koning; Lieuwe de Haan; Wiepke Cahn; Hugo G Schnack Journal: NPJ Schizophr Date: 2021-07-02